Colours from film *could* be great, but it was very much like digital is now - rarely perfect SOOC (unless it's transparencies and then you'd better really know what you're doing).

Pro-grade transparency films had relatively short optimum shelf life, often came with recommended colour correction filtration to be included at time of exposure (i.e. cyan, yellow, magenta corrections), which changed from batch to batch (so photographers bought in huge quantities and tested emulsions, refrigerating/freezing them for long term storage), changed with length of exposure as well, and were at the mercy of the lab maintaining chemistry within manufacturer tolerances. Add to that, the moment the film dried, it slowly began degrading.

In comparison, digital is a piece of cake for photographers. Maybe a custom colour profile is needed for absolute best results, but otherwise a few tweaks here and there in software will result in consistently better results with much less effort.

What I find more interesting about these images is the lighting employed by some of the photographers. While perhaps a bit stylized, obvious care, thought and planning went into many of these staged photos, in part because one simply couldn't show up and wander through the factory shooting hand held available light at ISO 6400... So, I guess you can say the look is somewhat influenced by the technology of the day. ISO 10 vs. 3200+...

Also of interest, all/most of the images at that site, shorpy, etc. culled from the LOC collection, have been retouched and colour enhanced, therefore you're not really seeing how the film *really* looks now, after 70 years.

Kodak is not out of business. That is misinformation that needs to stop being perpetuated. A great many current companies have been through bankruptcy, some of them more than once. The best case for all of us is that Kodak ends up like Ilford, which of course was bought out and allowed to continue as it was.

luminosity wrote:
Kodak is not out of business. That is misinformation that needs to stop being perpetuated. A great many current companies have been through bankruptcy, some of them more than once. The best case for all of us is that Kodak ends up like Ilford, which of course was bought out and allowed to continue as it was.

Many of those posting on this forum don't have the experience, resources and time (and even a lighting and hair/makup crew) to control the lighting as was done in these pictures. Truth be told the Film/Sensor just records the scene. The lighting is where the rubber meets the road.

SoundHound wrote:
Many of those posting on this forum don't have the experience, resources and time (and even a lighting and hair/makup crew) to control the lighting as was done in these pictures. Truth be told the Film/Sensor just records the scene. The lighting is where the rubber meets the road.
The vintage Kodachrome images don't need controlled lighting to look insanely great.